Generally, the need to monitor, control, record, and provide detailed records of the usage of a telephone system in a controlled institutional environment is well recognized. It is common to utilize a controlled telephone system capable of monitoring outgoing telephone connections in many types of institutional environments, such as, but not limited to, penal institutions, military institutions, hospitals, schools, businesses, or specific types of government institutions. The reasons for monitoring and controlling institutional telephone systems are evident. To prevent such institutions from incurring unaccountable telephone costs, the institutions must either restrict access to outbound telephone lines or employ a telephone monitoring system to charge the responsible party for making the outbound communication. Otherwise, unaccountable telephone costs would severally hinder the availability of the telephone systems in institutions.
Therefore, it is imperative for many institutions to utilize a communication system that provides an accurate identification means for administrators to determine the individual responsible for each outbound telephone call. A communication system must also provide a monitoring means for maintaining a useful record of the communication. Additionally, the system may include a means for restricting access or a means for providing options to particular users. Considering the number of users in a large institution, different payment methods available, and the excessive call volume at many institutions, it is evident that an effective telephone management system is essential.
Providing telephone systems in specific types of highly restricted institutions, such as in penal institutions, results in the consideration of numerous additional complicating factors. Generally, outbound communication means in penal institutions are heavily regulated by the government. Therefore, communication systems implemented in penal institutions or similar facilities must meet greater security requirements often mandated by regulatory bodies affiliated with the county, state, or federal institution. Thus, the communication system used in a regulated institution must employ unique functions often unnecessary in other types of institutions.
In its most general form, a penal institution's telephone system utilizes a call processor to approve and place a call, surveillance equipment or monitoring equipment, and a recording device for evidencing the conversation. Generally, these simple systems are not equipped to restrict an inmate from calling any individual. However, it is preferable for the call system devices now employed in such institutions to have the capability to thwart an inmate from calling certain specific individuals or types of individuals. Without the necessary constraints on an inmate's use of the telephone system, inmates have often harassed outside parties or individuals. For example, it is generally preferred that an inmate should not be able to place a telephone call to the prosecutor who prosecuted the inmate's case or another attorney responsible for the sentencing of the inmate. In another example, it may be preferred that an inmate be prevented from contacting the victim of the inmate's crime or witnesses from the inmate's case. It has also been documented that inmates have used previous penal institution call systems to perpetrate additional criminal activities such as fraudulent schemes or specific criminal conspiracies. Specifically, inmates have been known to arrange credit card fraud attempts, the smuggling of contraband into the facility, and have even been known to arrange escape attempts over the penal institution's telephone system. Therefore, it is critical in an efficient penal institution to carefully monitor all outgoing telephone calls making a regulated penal institution telephone system a necessity.
Another concern in implementing an efficient institution telephone system is cost control. In order for a system to be cost effective, the system must critically monitor and record the activities of each individual user to properly charge each individual caller for his or her outgoing calls. Typically, telephone communication systems in penal institutions provide an inmate with a telephone account upon arrival. Each individual receives an account number. There are several options for an inmate to select with respect to payment on the account. For example, an inmate may place prior personal earnings into the account. The cost of each call is then deducted from the total amount in the inmate's account until no balance remains. The inmate may choose to utilize collect call means. In addition, or alternatively, an inmate may be assigned a commissary account, where funds are added to the account based on work performed by the inmate. As the funds increase, the inmate may apply these funds to the cost of placing telephone calls. The inmate debit account may be located onsite, at a central office facility, or at a third-party site.
The inmate debit account may alternatively be controlled by the inmate's family. For example, the inmate's family may control the inmate's access to the debit account either remotely (e.g., by using the Internet, accessing a toll-free/pay to dial telephone number, using a mail form, etc.) or by visiting the prison facility. The inmate's family may add funds to the debit account and thereby control the call volume allowed to the inmate.
Another requirement of a secure telephone management system in a penal institution is the accurate identification of the telephone call participants. Generally, it is common in a penal institution to assign each inmate a personal identification number (PIN). When an inmate attempts to place a telephone call, the inmate must supply a valid PIN to gain access to the telephone system. However, a primary problem with this identification method is the ease of obtaining another inmate's PIN. For example, individuals who commonly forget their PIN may write it down, increasing the possibility that an unauthorized individual will view the PIN and use it. In addition, if a PIN number is compromised and utilized by an unauthorized inmate, the unauthorized inmate may then be able to call certain individuals who are restricted to that inmate, since the unauthorized inmate is no longer using the proper PIN associated with that inmate. In known systems, the PIN identification method is incapable of verifying that the individual who supplies the PIN is the actual specified inmate. Some systems have attempted to improve security by requiring the use of a debit card in conjunction with a PIN. The use of the debit card will only allow access to an inmate's account if the correct associated PIN is supplied. This method, however, provides only minimal additional protection because a debit card and its associated PIN can often, with or without force, easily be taken from another inmate, or given to another inmate, especially in the violent atmosphere of a penal institution. For example, one inmate may threaten another inmate in order to obtain such information. Alternatively, one inmate may provide certain services in exchange for the use of another inmate's telephone privileges. The possibility that two inmates will exchange accounts also exists, thereby allowing them to contact people that would normally be restricted to them.
Further attempts to obviate security concerns include requiring personal information, in addition to a PIN, to be supplied by the inmate/user. For example, a user might be prompted to supply a PIN as well as certain information that may only be known to the user. A common example is a request by the call system to provide their mother's maiden name. This provides an additional security measure, but again is minimally secure because such information can easily be obtained in a correctional facility. It would therefore be desirable to develop a telephone management system that incorporates an improved method of identification and/or verification.
Another required feature of a telephone management system for a penal institution or similar facility is a means for restricting calls placed by a user (e.g., an inmate). It is well documented that inmates often try to harass individuals related to their arrest or confinement, such as judges, prosecutors or witnesses, etc., through telephonic communications. Penal institutions have attempted to prevent this by restricting the telephone numbers each inmate is able to access. For example, a system may utilize a PIN or other identification means to access a list of telephone numbers that the inmate may not call, or alternatively, the system may access a list of numbers that the inmate is authorized to connect to (i.e., the inmate can only call the numbers appearing on the list). Telephone numbers placed on the restricted list can include any individual related to the conviction (e.g., the arresting police officer, the prosecuting attorney, etc.), while telephone numbers placed on the permitted list may be, for example, close family relatives. The system may also limit the amount of time each inmate/user is permitted to conduct each outbound telephone call through the system. Furthermore, restrictions may be regularly updated. For example, if an inmate misbehaves, the inmate's telephone privileges may be further limited or revoked completely.
Penal institutions are also concerned with monitoring the activities and communications of inmates. Monitoring telephone activities is necessary to restrict connections to illegal activities outside of the institution.
Three existing types of call monitoring techniques are known in the art. The first technique is live monitoring. Live monitoring requires an operator or other individual to listen to each telephone call and alert the proper authorities if necessary.
The second type of monitoring involves recording the telephone conversation via a common recording device. A common example of this is a recording device such as a magnetic tape drive. This type of monitoring may be continuous or intermittent depending on the degree of security required for each inmate.
The third type of monitoring is known as passive monitoring. Passive monitoring may be activated when certain keywords are spoken. In addition, passive monitoring may be activated if the telephone call at the termination end is transferred to a third party via certain known detection means such as “click and pop” detection, etc.
Penal institutions currently record most inmate telephone calls, with the exception of lawyer-inmate communications, which are generally prohibited by law. Typically, in the art, monitoring may occur using any combination of the three methods (e.g., live monitoring, electronic recording monitoring, or passive monitoring). However, it would be desirable for a telephone management system to embody a means for determining which level of telephone monitoring should be employed for each telephone call. For example, it would be advantageous to flag certain individuals in an inmate's profile as highly suspicious. If the inmate initiates communication with the flagged individual, the system will alert a live operator to monitor the system. In such a system, it is essential that the system correctly identify the called individual to avoid unnecessary expenditure of live operators.
Alternatively, the inmate telephone call system may utilize a remote alert notification system wherein the system contacts an operator when a violation has occurred. The system may contact the operator utilizing telephone means, paging means, etc. This notification system may be set to call the operator a limited number of times or until the alert has been noted in the inmate telephone call system. The operator may then access information about the alert remotely using the telephone, Internet, or any other such remote access means.
In order to alleviate some of the problems and concerns discussed herein, many penal institutions have implemented certain task-specific advanced systems. Generally, these “advanced” systems known in the art comprise several features.
For example, it is known in current systems to employ permanent call blocking. Specifically, it is known in the art to block an inmate or group of inmates from dialing certain telephone numbers. Most systems also prevent inmates from talking directly to live operators. This prevents inmates from requesting that the operator forward a call or provide additional telephone numbers allowing the inmates to harass or locate additional parties. Furthermore, current systems block “1-800”, “1-900”, and other like telephone numbers including toll-free and pay-to-dial telephone numbers. In addition, certain institutions may elect to block country codes, specific area codes, or other third-party numbers.
Current systems known in the art may also utilize a feature commonly referred to as “selective” call blocking. As discussed, “selective” call blocking may be employed to thwart inmates from establishing a connection with a selected group of individuals (i.e., with the home telephone of prison guards, wardens, indictment witnesses, trial witnesses, police officers, judges, etc.). It is also foreseeable that the telephone numbers of the family members of these specific individuals may also be blocked.
Some current systems also limit the use of specific long-distance carriers. This feature proves useful in limiting unnecessary costs incurred by employing alternating carriers.
Several current systems utilize features commonly referred to as “flash hook” prevention or “click” and “pop” prevention modes. These systems prevent inmates from extending the current outgoing telephone call and entering a new telephone call with a new number without fully terminating the original telephone call. For example, this prevents an inmate from utilizing common call forwarding features and the like.
In addition, some current institutional telephone systems electronically or manually disable the keypad after a telephone number is dialed and the telephone call is connected. This feature prevents inmates from interacting with telephone games and lotteries, and in certain older systems, prevents the inmate from achieving an unrestricted dial tone.
Another common feature employed by institutional systems is three-way call prevention. This feature prevents an inmate from instructing the called party to bridge the telephone call to another telephone number.
Other known systems in the art may exhibit other regulatory features. For example, generally, telephone communication systems allow an institution to limit the duration of a telephone call and/or to limit the cost of the telephone call. These types of features further allow a facility to customize the telephone call systems thereby preventing unrecoverable expenditures.
Another control used by current institution telephone systems is the use of certain aspects of biometric recognition for the identification of users or inmates (i.e., the calling party). However, systems known in the art have only used biometrics to a limited extent. It is highly beneficial for communication systems in penal institutions to incorporate biometrics as an additional security device. Biometric recognition is commonly available in a number of fields. For example, biometrics recognition has found a number of security uses, including common usage, in credit card systems and building security systems. Biometric information includes fingerprints, hand geometry, voiceprints, retinal patterns, iris scans, signatures, infrared facial patterns, and all other sources which constitute unique physiological characteristics and which can assist in establishing a person's identity. Various devices exist which can scan one or more biometric characteristics and digitize the information.
The features discussed herein are present in several prior art references. For example, Hird, et al. U.S. Pat. No. 4,890,317 discloses an automatic account number validation and billing management system. The system disclosed in Hird et al. prompts a user for an account number and compares the number inputted to a number stored in a database to determine validity. If the account number is valid and found in the database, the system completes the predetermined telephonic connection. If the number is not in the database, and therefore invalid, the system will utilize voice prompts to request re-entry of the number or provide further instructions. The system attempts to locally automate and simplify the process of payment for routing calls without live operator assistance, but does not address additional security concerns that may exist in specific facilities, such as in a penal institution. Furthermore, Hird et al. does not provide for protection measures to confirm that the individual supplying the account number is the individual entitled to the use of the account. In such a hostile environment as in a penal institution, an account number may easily be obtainable through coercion or by force. Additionally, the system does not provide any means of monitoring the conversations taking place or restricting which individuals are accessed by the user.
Kamil, U.S. Pat. No. 4,706,275, discloses a call management system enabling prepayment of telephone calls utilizing a debit system. Specifically, a user of the system obtains a special code by depositing a prepayment. The prepayment is stored in a database on the call management system for use in verifying calling party calls. To access the system, a user dials a special number and inputs a user-specific code for verification followed by the number of the party to be called. Next, the code is verified by the system. If verification is successful and sufficient funds are available, the call is connected. The prepayment amount, minus deductions for the running cost of the call, is tabulated as the call progresses. The call terminates either when the prepaid funds are exhausted in the user's account or when either party disconnects. The invention also includes steps to prevent the same access code from being used at different terminals. However, Kamil does not teach of a means for selecting the call type or a call monitoring means. Kamil also fails to teach an advanced verification means specific to a user.
D'Urso et al. U.S. Pat. No. 5,353,335, teaches a multilingual prepaid telephone system capable of interfacing with a public switched telephone network (“PSTN”). In the system disclosed by D'Urso et al., each user of the system is assigned a PIN and a credit account. To access the system, a user first dials a number to access the telephone system and chooses a language for all subsequent voice prompts. The user then supplies a PIN, which is compared against a list of numbers in a database. If sufficient credit is available for the duration of a telephone call to the destination number, the connection is completed and a timer is set for the available duration of the call. The call terminates either when the allowed amount of time for the call expires or if one party member hangs up the telephone line. If the latter situation occurs, the system computes a new available credit balance for the user's account. D'Urso fails to provide a selection means for the user, such as the ability to choose the type of call to be placed (e.g., collect, debit, international, etc.). D'Urso also fails to teach any call monitoring means and would therefore be unacceptable as a communication system for a penal institution.
Brown et al. U.S. Pat. No. 5,485,507 discloses an integrated commissary system for receiving and processing orders in an institutional setting. The commissary system is designed for use without access to a PSTN. According to Brown et al., user status and inventory status are stored in an onsite database. To access the database, a user provides identifier information and item selections through selected telephones. The selections are compared against the onsite database using a processor. If the user is authenticated and the requested items are available, the processor generates transaction records, updates user commissary information, and correctly adjusts inventory. The updated information is stored in a file that may be used for record keeping or archival purposes. However, Brown, et al. does not teach a commissary system for use with a PSTN. Brown et al. also fails to teach multiple authentication means and would therefore be unacceptable for use in a penal institution.
Penfield et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,058,173, discloses a software process for real-time call rating and debiting so that a subscriber's account balance is not exceeded. The method disclosed by Penfield et al. estimates the time when the user's balance will expire by using the total charge per second average. The process then determines the time remaining by dividing the account balance by the average charge per second of all telephone calls, and the time limit for the call is then set accordingly. This method is useful if the rate for long distance calls is not known locally. However, the system does not allow for other types of calls, such as collect calls, to take place. Furthermore, Penfield, et al. fails to provide an advanced call monitoring apparatus with an advanced authentication apparatus.
Hellwarth et al. U.S. Pat. No. 4,935,956 depicts an automated public telephone control for charge or collect call billing. The apparatus embodies a microprocessor system controlling voice prompting, recognition of responses, network signaling, recording of calling details, and verification of account numbers. The disclosed invention provides for an automated telephone billing for public telephone systems. The system offers a plurality of billing methods, such as billing to a credit account number, to the called party (collect calling), or to a third party. An additional aspect of the invention describes the recognition of voice utterances from other signals and called party spoken words (i.e., the system can recognize the word “yes” when spoken by any individual). However, Hellwarth et al. does not identify or verify the individual speaking. Furthermore, this system does not provide a means to identify the user or verify that the user is not partaking in fraudulent activities. Hellwarth et al. also fails to teach of a monitoring and call control means.
Kitchin et al. U.S. Pat. No. 5,319,702 discloses a system for a detection and a reaction to “hook flash” events occurring during a telephone communication. Kitchin et al. is primarily concerned with the detection of “hook flash” events caused by the initiation of a three-way conference call. The system monitors the calls for particular sounds in intervals and tests if the sound is constant within other intervals. For example, if a sound is detected in the second interval that did not exist in the first interval further analysis will ensue. The system may then compare the total number of dialed digits with the original number of dialed digits to determine if an additional digit was dialed. The additional digit identified may cause the new sound in the second interval. Additional forms of analysis are also contemplated. If the additional sound cannot be explained through further analysis, the system may terminate the call. However, Kitchin et al. fails to disclose a means for incorporating biometric recognition in an institution telephone call system. Furthermore, Kitchin et al. fails to disclose a means for incorporating a WAN-based institution telephone control system.
Hird, et al. U.S. Pat. No. 5,483,581 depicts a collect call system, which can automatically route long distance calls without intervention of an outside service or operator. This feature enables private public telephone owners, as opposed to primary telephone companies, to receive revenue for completion of the call. The invention comprises the steps of providing the calling party with voice prompts, receiving voice or dialed signal information about the calling party in response to the voice prompts, either voice or dialed signals, locally recording the information about the calling party, providing the called party information about the calling party, and reacting to a variety of provided signals by either the called or calling party. The Hird, et al. patent only provides a method and apparatus for placing collect calls. In addition, Hird, et al. avoids consideration of providing other possible payment methods. The system disclosed in Hird, et al. is further limited by its lack of telephone call monitoring ability and calling party identification means, and is therefore unsuitable for use in penal institutions.
Bogosian Jr. U.S. Pat. No. 5,513,272 discloses a system utilizing biometric verification means for determining if a user is authorized to use a credit or identification card. The invention introduces a method embodying the steps of receiving biometric data from a cardholder, scanning the card to obtain user information, and retrieving authorized card owner information stored in a database. The information obtained from the three sources (i.e., cardholder, card, and database) is analyzed and compared to verify that the cardholder is the authorized card owner. Bogosian Jr. describes a number of possible biometric features that may be used such as voiceprints, fingerprints, digital photography, and retinal scans. It is an improved verification method because it compares the user information to an already existing database, which lessens the possibility of incorrect identification. The Bogosian Jr. patent provides a reliable means for verifying a user in a credit or debit card system. However, Bogosian Jr. fails to implement additional biometric means useful in identifying a called party and fails to apply these features to specific institutional functions.
Gainsboro U.S. Pat. No. 5,655,013 exemplifies the need for a control management and monitoring system in institutional settings. Gainsboro discloses a system for controlling, monitoring, recording, and reporting telephone communications. The system deals primarily with the identification of a user through use of a PIN and restricting telephone communications through a profile accessed by the PIN. The system further contemplates means for monitoring and recording communications.
Gainsboro U.S. Pat. No. 5,926,533 is a continuation-in-part of Gainsboro U.S. Pat. No. 5,655,013. The continuation-in-part is primarily concerned with incorporating an improved method of monitoring calls. The method includes a means for detecting tones commonly associated with call bridging and call forwarding attempts. For example, Gainsboro is directed to the detection of tones such as ring signals, busy signals, special information tones (“SIT” tones), dual tone multi-frequency tones (“DTMF”), call progress tones, or other similar tones characteristic of the placement of a telephone call. However, both Gainsboro U.S. Pat. No. 5,655,013 and Gainsboro U.S. Pat. No. 5,926,533 are limited by detection of certain sounds, which may not be readily machine-recognizable. For example, it is foreseeable that interference, backgroundnoise, or compressed voice data may inhibit the detection of the tones.
Gustafson, et al. U.S. Pat. No. 5,696,880 describes a system for the verification of a calling party, called party and a secure connection. The invention includes the costly requirement of secure telephone devices, such as Micro MMT Sectel® 1500BDI known in the art. Specifically, Gustafson, et al. teaches a system wherein the calling and called parties supply voice data which is encoded and transmitted over a telephone network. Both users hear the alternate party's recorded voice data and verify that the supplied voice data is correct. The call is established only if both parties verify that the called party has provided the correct voice data. However, it would be too costly to implement such a system in a penal institution or similar facility. Additionally, the system does not consider possible payment methods for calls or call management. For example, certain inmates may be entitled to call only a few particular individuals. A system within the penal institutions, or similar facility, must include a means for limiting the number of potential called parties and the specific parties to which inmates can call and provide a means for monitoring inmate call transactions.
Fujimoto, et al. U.S. Pat. No. 5,893,057 teaches the ability to utilize voice recognition as identification means. One aspect of the invention introduces a speaker recognition method and system using two processing units. The first unit receives voice characteristic information by recording specific words spoken by the user. The information is analyzed and stored in a database. The system prompts the user for additional information, which is then received by a second processing unit. The results of the analysis of the second processing unit are sent to a first processing unit with the previously stored information. A comparison of the analyses determines if the user is authorized. Although Fujimoto, et al. contemplates other voice recognition methods, Fujimoto, et al. fails to address any other field of biometric recognition. The invention is further limited by its inability to manage call restrictions and lacks monitoring capabilities.
Kanevsky, et al U.S. Pat. No. 6,092,192 discloses a system to permit users repetitive access to a multitude of systems. The system requires an initial enrollment phase for access. The enrollment phase consists of extracting biometric data to be stored for future use. The format of the data is compatible with a plurality of verification/identification systems. For example, in one embodiment, Kanevsky describes a biometric recognition means including voice recognition, fingerprint identification, and retinal scan identification. However, Kanevsky does not address restrictions to the system or further monitoring means during use of the system, which are essential for systems within a penal institution.
Kanevsky, et al. U.S. Pat. No. 6,161,090 discloses the utilization of acoustic and non-acoustic attributes to identify users of a system. An initial profile is created by both utterances spoken by a user and non-acoustic information, such as keying in a user's customer number or social security number. The acoustic recognition contemplates the usage of a plurality of voice recognition methods. The system is limited in its ability for use in a telephonic system in a penal institution by the lack or monitoring or call management abilities.
In view of the foregoing, clearly there exists a need for an improved method and apparatus for managing an institution's telephone call system. Furthermore, clearly there exists a need for an improved telephone call monitoring system for a penal institutions or similar facilities that addresses the increased concerns of monitoring the call activity of the calling party. In particular, there exists a need in the art to provide a computer-based telecommunication system with the capacity to allow an institution to control, record, monitor, and report usage and access to a telephone network.